TALLAHASSEE — Gulfstream Park Racing Association has filed a lawsuit arguing that a requirement that the South Florida thoroughbred track conduct races to maintain its lucrative slot-machine operations is an unconstitutional “special law” that “thoroughly undermines” its ability to compete with other parimutuels.
Gulfstream is one of two thoroughbred tracks that still run races in the state. The other, Tampa Bay Downs, is not allowed to offer slot machines.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Leon County circuit court, challenges a 2021 state law that revamped a longstanding requirement that parimutuels conduct races or hold jai alai games if they wanted to operate more-lucrative cardrooms and, in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, slot machines. Lawmakers agreed to get rid of the requirement — a move known in the gambling industry as “decoupling” — for harness-racing and quarter-horse tracks and jai alai frontons.
Only thoroughbred tracks were required to continue running races, an exception spurred, at least in part, by the large thoroughbred industry in the Ocala area. Florida voters in 2018 passed a constitutional amendment to end greyhound racing, and former dog tracks are allowed to offer other types of gambling.
Suing the gaming commission
Gulfstream’s lawsuit, which names the Florida Gaming Control Commission as a defendant, argues the 2021 law puts the Hallandale Beach track at a competitive disadvantage against other parimutuels in Broward and Miami-Dade that can offer slots without running races or offering jai alai.
The decoupling law “thoroughly undermines the ability of Gulfstream to compete with other pari-mutuel companies authorized to operate slot machines, subjecting it to irrational, different treatment with its live racing requirement,” the lawsuit said.
Attorneys for Gulfstream alleged that the law violates the Florida Constitution’s prohibition against “special” laws that apply only to “particular persons or things” or laws or that provide a “grant of privilege to a private corporation.”
Gulfstream was the only thoroughbred permitholder operating slots at the time the law was passed, the lawsuit said. The law also won’t apply to anyone else in the future because no new parimutuels permits will come online, according to Gulfstream’s lawyers.
“It is clear not only that” the 2021 law “is a special law, but that it is a law targeting Gulfstream specifically, as the current — and likely only ever to be — thoroughbred permitholder with a slot machine license,” the lawsuit said.
“Gulfstream alone faces exorbitant fines, the loss of its license, the revocation of its permit, and potential criminal prosecution should it operate its slot machines while failing to maintain a full schedule of live racing,” said the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Gulfstream by former U.S. Sen. George LeMieux and other lawyers with the Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart P.A. firm.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction barring state gambling regulators from requiring Gulfstream to run a full calendar of races or suspending its slots license for failing to do so.
Florida voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment allowing parimutuel facilities to add slots in Broward and Miami-Dade if voters in the counties agreed in local referendums. Gulfstream was among four Broward operators that were allowed to add slots after voters gave the go-ahead. Voters in Miami-Dade signed off on slots in 2008.
A proposal that could have allowed Gulfstream and Tampa Bay Downs to do away with racing but offer other types of gambling touched off heavy debate during this year’s legislative session but did not pass.
The proposal, backed by Gulfstream, drew fierce opposition from breeders, trainers and other people in the horse industry, who said it would lead to the demise of thoroughbred racing in the state — and devastate the industry, which plays a major economic role in the Ocala area.
An 'equal protection violation'
Tuesday’s lawsuit argued that the 2021 law is unfair to Gulfstream.
“Gulfstream alone bears the statutory burden to sustain one particular industry — thoroughbred horseracing — in order to participate in another industry — slot machines. No other competitor suffers that legislatively imposed burden on its constitutional right to operate slot machines,” Gulfstream’s lawyers argued.
The lawsuit also alleged that the law amounts to an “unconstitutional equal protection violation” because Gulfstream alone is “encumbered by the requirement to conduct live racing” and is the only parimutuel permitholder that could face criminal prosecution for failing to maintain live racing while continuing to operate slots.
“This differential treatment destroys Gulfstream’s ability to compete with other similarly situated entities and puts Gulfstream at a severe disadvantage as compared to other similarly situated entities,” the lawsuit said.
